The request to write an article on US Policy towards Sri Lanka in 2008/2009 came at a timely moment, for I had been reflecting in some anguish on the crisis that the Sri Lankan government is now facing. I believe that this crisis is of the government’s own creation, but at the same time I believe that its root causes lie in US policy towards us during the period noted.

Nishan de Mel of Verite Research, one of the organizations now favoured by the Americans to promote change, accused me recently of being too indulgent to the Sri Lankan government. I can understand his criticism, though there is a difference between understanding some phenomenon and seeking to justify it. My point is that, without understanding what is going on, the reasons for what a perceptive Indian journalist has described as the ‘collective feeling that the Sri Lankan State and Government are either unable or unwilling’ to protect Muslims from the current spate of attacks, we will not be able to find solutions.

Nishan might have felt however that I was working on the principle that to understand everything is to forgive everything. But that only makes sense if corrective action has been taken, ie if the perpetrator of wrongs has made it clear that these will be stopped and atoned for. Sadly, after the recent incidents at Aluthgama, I fear the time and space for changing course are running out. But even if we can do nothing but watch the current government moving on a course of self-destruction, it is worth looking at the causes and hoping that history will not repeat itself at some future stage

My contention is that the appalling behavior of the government at present springs from insecurity. That insecurity has led it to believe that it can rely only on extremist votes and extremist politicians. Thus the unhappiness of the vast majority of the senior SLFP leadership, and their willingness to engage in political reform that promotes pluralism, are ignored in the belief that victory at elections can only be secured if what is perceived as a fundamentalist and fundamental Sinhala Buddhist base is appeased.

The problem is exacerbated by the adulation these forces offer the Secretary of Defence. Though the international elements that believe they need to interfere in Sri Lanka see the Rajapaksa family as a monolith (and are right to the extent that internal divisions will not interfere with united action against outsiders), the recent aggressive critiques of the government’s economic policies are a clear challenge to the Minister for Economic Development. These critiques will have no effect since he is seen as the genius behind electoral strategy. But they indicate what will follow a government electoral victory, since there is no doubt the President would prefer his son to be his successor, and the Secretary of Defence is more likely to fall in with such an agenda than his younger brother. What the President does not realize is that the extremists are as little enamoured of the son, with his penchant for Western modes of entertainment, as of the current economic dispensation.

Internal rivalries then play their part in the current crisis. More serious is the complete neglect of the real power base of the government, namely the old SLFP. But the President has no confidence in that section of his support base, and will not take the first step required to shore up his popularity, namely appointing a serious Prime Minister from their ranks. If only the leading contenders would get together and agree on a name, perhaps the most senior being the least contentious, they could help resolve the problem. But this seems unlikely, and so resentments will continue, with all sorts of elements opposed to the President fishing in the troubled waters, which in turn only increases his sense of insecurity.

But I do not blame them for the crisis. The depth of the forces ranged against them became clear to me when I was told in 2012 about the efforts made by the head of the kitchen element in our Foreign Policy trying to convince the President that the Indian Paarliamentary delegation, led by its present Foreign Minister, Sushma Swaraj, had connived with the Leader of the House to criticize him. Fortunately the Secretary to the President had been able to convince him otherwise, but the readiness of the President to believe the worst about the principal elements that would combat extremist influences on him shows how brilliantly the insecurity has been orchestrated.

With friends like that, then, who needs enemies? But I think to understand the sense of siege that has overtaken the government, we need to go back to the violent shock to the mindset that occurred in 2009. I refer to the range of forces that supported Sarath Fonseka for the Presidency when he ran against the incumbent President.

In 2009 I believe the President was willing to move forward on necessary reforms. Unless it is assumed that he is an inveterate liar, his commitments to both the Indian government and to the UN Secretary General indicate a positive mindset. And in all fairness to the Minister of Economic Development, in his previous incarnation he was absolutely sincere about resettling the displaced as swiftly as possible. It was then Sarath Fonseka who stood in his way, as for instance when the Commanders on the ground were told to recheck those who had been sent back to the various districts. But in those days the ground leadership, led by enlightened active generals such as Kamal Guneratne and Brindley Mark, only paid lip service to the instructions and sent the displaced swiftly to their original places of residence

But two months later, it was that same Sarath Fonseka who had become the darling of the West, or rather the Anglo-Saxons (a couple of European ambassadors told me they could not understand what was going on), and also of the Tamil National Alliance as well as the politically inclined NGO community, one of which actively endorsed Fonseka (though the more aggressively anti-government ones were more circumspect, understanding that Fonseka was only being used as a tool).

What had happened? The key, to be indulgent to the Americans, lies in what former Ambassador Robert Blake is supposed to have told a senior Indian politician, namely that they had discovered the perfect weapon to pressurize Mahinda Rajapaksa. In all fairness to Bob Blake, who I think had been a good friend to Sri Lanka when he was Ambassador, he was now serving a different administration, and was perhaps under pressure himself to correct what was seen as the triumphalism that accompanied the end of the war. I would like to think then that perhaps his idea, while playing along with his superiors at the State Department who were negative about us, was to keep our President on the straight and narrow by splitting him off from his hardline supporters.

But unfortunately the chosen instrument of the new policy was a new Ambassador, who was not as nuanced as Bob Blake. Though I can understand why one of the more sensitive American diplomats in Colombo at the time told me that he thought our best friends were Blake and his successor Patricia Butenis, that was after Patricia understood more about the country. In her first few months however, she saw things in black and white, and in her usual gung-ho fashion went straight into trying to ensure that Mahinda Rajapaksa lost the election.

I was present at what I think was a salient moment, at the house of her Political Affairs Officer, Paul Carter. He was by no means subtle, and later came into conflict with Butenis when he thought she was not being hard enough on us. The occasion was his Boxing Day Party, when I think I was the only government representative present. Present also was Mr Sambandan and, when I went to speak to him, I found him deep in conversation with Patricia and the then head of the EU Mission, who was also one of those deeply critical of the government at the time. Patricia, who always wore her heart on her sleeve, looked very shifty, and would not talk to me, and it was left to the EU to make polite conversation until I took myself away.

Sambandan ended up endorsing Sarath Fonseka, which was disastrous. I think the TNA now realizes how foolish it had been. Though I can accept their argument that they did not want to support the President, following the war, they could easily have kept neutral. By following the American line, they sent a message to the President that they would prefer anyone to him. Given that they well knew Fonseka’s much more nationalistic outlook, the argument that he had promised to give them what they wanted was no justification for spurning the President’s efforts at the time to reach a widely acceptable solution.

The American strategy was to unite all the forces opposed to the President, and perhaps hope that, if Fonseka won, he would live up to his initial promises and make Ranil Wickremesinghe Prime Minister and allow him to take all important decisions. That was an absurd supposition, and would not have been made by Bob Blake had he been on the ground. Indeed I suspect that Blake would have realized the absurdity of the strategy when Ranil dropped out of the race. Before that the hope would have been, given the simplistic interpretation of Mahinda Rajapaksa as a hardliner, that he and Fonseka would have split the extremist vote, allowing Ranil somehow to be elected.

But Ranil sensibly enough withdrew – which perhaps contributed to Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu’s claim, being now obliged to support Fonseka, that it was Ranil who had ruined everything. Saravanamuttu, it should be noted, clung to the old strategy even on election day, trying to create doubts about the results, in pursuit of the strategy the West has pursued with regard to elections where the result is not to their liking, of crying foul and encouraging civil unrest. Fortunately the margin was decisive enough in 2010 for that strategy to prove impossible, though there is little doubt that it will certainly come into play in 2015.

Contrary to what I believe the Americans initially wanted, though ultimately playing into their hands, was that the extremists rallied to the President. Indeed, when Sarath Fonseka emerged as the common candidate, those able to deal with Fonseka on his own terms became the leading lights in the election campaign. Symptomatic of the strategy was the way in which Fonseka’s insinuation that the Secretary of Defence was responsible for the killing of LTTE leaders who surrendered was tackled. Instead of calling the man a liar, and citing his previous claim that he was responsible (which indeed the Americans had helpfully brought to our attention), government summarily dismissed Mahinda Samarasinghe who had been asked to take the lead at a press conference, and instead entrusted the job to Wimal Weerawansa and his like.

The result may have seemed effective electorally to the government, but it was disastrous for the Secretary of Defence. It created the impression that he had indeed done what he was charged with, and Fonseka’s crime was revealing this, not that he had made up the story. And it also made it difficult for him to do what any army should have done when credible evidence of possible abuses was placed before it, as the LLRC indicated had occurred in a limited number of cases. Whereas he should have conducted an investigation transparently and taken disciplinary action if required, he had laid himself open to the charge of being called a traitor himself.

So the very simple way to have avoided an international inquiry, laid out so systematically by the LLRC, was blocked. Interestingly enough, whereas all other reactions to the LLRC were predominantly positive, it was only the Americans, the TNA and Saravanamuttu’s CPA who were deeply critical. But again government, instead of responding to this sensibly by promptly implementing the LLRC in full, instead allowed Weerawansa and the Secretary of Defence, through the Defence Ministry website, to attack it.

I can understand then why Patricia Butenis, in the last constructive conversation I had with her, said that the government was ambiguous about the LLRC. I did point out that the Americans were largely responsible about this since, when government had unambiguous embraced the LLRC, tabling its report and asking for an Action Plan on the recommendations, it was the Americans (not Butenis but Patricia Nuland in Washington) who had been harsh. Typically the government had then reacted by in effect saying, if you want more, we have people who want less. But I told her she should listen not to individuals but to the accredited spokesmen of government.

Who were these, she asked, which was understandable given their lack of apparent authority. G L and Mohan Pieris, I said, to which her response was that both now lacked credibility. This startled me, though I have since realized that her point was totally valid. But in a context in which the President has failed to discipline contrary views, indeed seems to use them to highlight difficulties he could easily overcome, and with both G L and Mohan tailoring their advice to what they believe the Secretary of Defence wants, it is no wonder that we have lurched from crisis to crisis.

Certainly there is no doubt that we have failed absolutely to try to understand the Americans and work together positively with them in areas where we should. Thus we lost a great opportunity way back in 2009, even while some elements in their ranks were hatching the Fonseka plot, in failing to respond to the Kerry Report. That had raised some questions about the war, but in some cases had even provided us with answers to allegations. The most serious allegation related to Sarath Fonseka’s alleged assertion about responsibility for the White Flag incident, and I pointed out how we should immediately respond to this. Lalith Weeratunge agreed, but a committee was appointed that never met. And Mohan who agreed that he and I could easily draw up answers did not push, so the opportunity passed.

There may however have been a conceptual problem here, because Dayan Jayatilleka, who also pointed out to the President the need for a response (and was reassured by Lalith that a committee was looking into the matter, though typically no one bothered to ensure that the committee met), told me that there was a school of thought in Sri Lanka that claimed the Report showed the Americans had softened towards us, and understood the importance of our achievement, and would soon cease to persecute us. I was told that this view was prevalent even in the Foreign Ministry, and G L Pieris cannot be blamed for this since he was not Minister at the time – which perhaps suggests that my criticisms of him, if not misplaced, should be more general.

Meanwhile the Americans were not resting. The conversation I mentioned with Patricia, who had been the most enthusiastic of foreign envoys in supporting my efforts, through the Council for Liberal Democracy, to bring politicians of different parties together to discuss reconciliation, took place in the Ministry of Defence. I think it was on the occasion, reported in Gota’s War when she had gone to explain away Paul Carter’s attempt to suborn the former Defence Spokesman, General Prasad Samarasinghe. That story was told me by the same NGO official, a friend of Bob Blake as well as generally supportive of government, who had told me about Kshenuka Seneviratne trying to create bad blood between the President and Sushma Swaraj and Nimal Siripala de Silva, and again I have no reason to doubt its accuracy.

Government as usual responded in a hamfisted fashion, allowing Patricia to offer her own explanation informally, instead of summoning her to the Ministry of External Affairs and making a formal complain, with a request for a written explanation. Thus, when I exposed the incident, Patricia was deeply upset, and turned in what struck me at the time was a Marlene Dietrich style performance, with a superbly suppressed sob, to express her sense of hurt. I too was sorry, because I had grown fond of her, and I continue to believe that, though she was driven by extremists, including Paul Carter, she was genuinely anxious for progress.

By then though our meetings had stopped, because after an adverse newspaper report in which Wimal Weerawansa had attacked her for something said at one of them, she had taken against Dilan Perera and insisted that I not invite him. I was not prepared to do this and I think this was seen as a test case of my commitment finally to a Sri Lankan agenda rather than an American one. But even so it is possible that, given the sterling commitment of Jeff Anderson, who had overseen the programme – and whose laconic comment on the Carter incident was that there were some very strange people in the Embassy – we would have continued had Carter not contributed to raising the stakes so aggressively.

Given all this, I think we must understand and sympathize with the anguish felt by the Secretary of Defence. Having received solid cooperation from the American government under George Bush, having I believe done his best to fight a clean war, he did not know what hit him when he became the target of criticism, with his own senior generals offered virtual asylum if they provided testimony against him – while Sarath Fonseka, who he knew had to be restrained on occasion, had turned into the darling of those members of the international community determined to criticize us.

But understanding his bewilderment does not excuse the dogmatic response he has engaged in. Following an extremist agenda because he believes these are the only people he can rely on had resulted in polarization that will destroy the country economically as well as socially. And sadly he does this whilst feeling immeasurably superior to other politicians, on the grounds that he is efficient and they are not.

I have some sympathy with this position, having seen how ineffective my colleagues in Parliament are. But we have also to recognize that he has highly trained professionals to work for him, whereas in other areas our administrators have been hamstrung and rendered ineffective by both the educational and the administrative systems; he has unlimited funds, a position only enjoyed also by his younger brother in the Cabinet, whereas other Ministers have to beg for funds and have no mechanisms to ensure coordinated action; and above all he knows he can do what he wants, whereas others are in danger of having their decisions flouted, with few able – as Karu Jayasuriya did – to say enough is enough and leave when he was not able to be an effective Minister.

So it should not be a matter for adulation that the Ministry of Defence works well. And it should certainly not be a reason for allowing the Secretary to dictate policies in other areas too. The recent tragedy of broken promises with regard to the Northern Province is symptomatic of the incapacity to understand the wider dimensions of the situation. We simply cannot alienate everyone, nationally and internationally, who does not share our mindset. And while I firmly believe we must continue our excellent relations with China, we must also follow Chinese advice and not believe that this can be done to the exclusion of others.

So, though I believe American machinations are to blame for engendering the current exclusivist mindset, the responsibility for the disasters that are piling up are our own. I believe the President is a capable politician and could change course if he really understood the position. But if he is lulled into complacence, as has happened year after year, if distrust of potential allies except for the family and the kitchen cabinet is inculcated in him, if he is not aware of the economic and educational problems that are mounting, then it seems we have only further suffering in store.

Whether the Americans will be happy with this I do not know. I would like to think not, but if we are not able to talk to them sensibly, then I suspect they will go into Mark Antony mode, as they have done in so many places lately, and with what they convince themselves are the best of motives, let slip the dogs of war.

The rise of extremism and violence against minorities signals the threat to peace and harmony. Compromise has no place within the philosophy of religious extremism. The noble philosophy of the religious teachings are blind folded when extremism march towards its goal of destruction. Recent conflict between the Buddhist extremists and the Muslims in Sri Lanka have demonstrated that human values are fully ignored and the laws of jungles prevail with the entry of political and religious extremism.

The ongoing tussle between the Buddhist extremists and the Muslims have demonstrated religion as a cruel killer, and not as a healer. Both parties have failed to see that religion has the force of compromising towards each other to endorse harmony with other communities embracing different faiths. The behaviour of both factions deviating from the concept of righteousness, have only demonstrated that they were preaching false religions, similar to some type of Cult organizations. Cult organizations and religious extremism have the same characteristics of a violent organization. Those engaged in propaganda of false religions failed to realize that realization of the divinity is the purpose of life which is the essence of religion and that it does not consist in erecting places of worship merely to show that this is a land of a particular faith. They failed to see what religion is about. Religion is the manifestation of the divinity already within man. The idea of realization is common to all religions. This is where religious extremists make blunders and mislead the people.

Various people from various countries with difference languages and culture search for God in pursuit of peace of mind. It is at this juncture the question arises as to how the mind roams about in search of God. The search for God revolves around the issue of spirituality. Places of worship represent as the meeting places where people could direct their minds towards God by way of meditation and the priests and preachers are there only to guide.

According to Lord Buddha ‘Goodwill toward all beings is the true religion; cherish in your hearts boundless goodwill to all that lives’.

According to Swami Vivekananda ‘There was any religion or yours, my national religion or your national religion; there never existed many religions, there is only the one. One Infinite Religion existed all through eternity and will ever exist and this Religion is expressing itself in various countries, in various ways.’

Religious extremists in Sri Lanka have to pay more attention to the statements of Lord Buddha and Swami Vivekananda. It is time to realize for all religious extremists to realize that all religions are like a garden of different flowers where each religion retains its unique nature as stated by Swami Ramakrishna Paramhamsa.

Fanaticism denotes lack of tolerance. The idea of extremism is linked to politics while the idea of fanaticism is linked to religion. In the case of BBS, they are filled with excessive and single-minded desire for an extreme religious or political cause. After the defeat of the LTTE, Sri Lankan ruling politicians have become warmongering sadists and appear to follow the path of political fanaticism as occurred in Russia, China, Cambodia, Ruwanda, Iraq and Libya, resulting in the death several millions of people. However, in Sri Lanka it appears that both political and religious fanaticism are blended together. The behaviour of the BBS demonstrates that political fanaticism is itself religious fanaticism. Their action has the force of nullifying the civil liberties which are enshrined in the constitution.

Though it appears that the Muslims have never openly antagonized the Sinhalese, the failure to speak up against terrorism makes the Muslims to isolate themselves from the mainstream society in all aspects, which is known as self-alienation. If they fail to speak up, they will wake up one day to find religious fanatics own them and the end of their world has begun. Peace loving Muslims should not pay attention to the religious fanatics who threaten our way of life. Moreover, the economic opportunities created in the Middle-East paved way for a new brand of imported Islam. The religious perception of the Saudis and other Middle East countries influenced their isolation from the main stream society. The self-alienation of the Muslims appears to be a new development, signalling the deviation of the country on the wrong direction – a fact suspiciously viewed by the main stream society when it comes to national events. For instance, Muslim schools operate on a different calendar though there were separate schools for Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims. Such a concession to the Muslims which was granted in 1950, was not a far sighted thought when considering the turn of events. Such a concession nullified the interaction of the Muslim with other communities, because at national events Muslims fail to hoist the national flag in front of Mosques and schools. One ponders about the contribution of Muslims at national events. Prior to 1970 and after 1970 after the introduction of Wahabbism, a difference in their dress code can be seen. One ponders whether such an attire has anything to do with Islam. Such a sudden change compelled the Muslims indirectly and gradually to voluntarily alienate themselves from other communities. Perhaps this was the situation in Myanmar (Burma) where the Buddhists had viewed the Muslims with suspicion on account of the sudden change with the introduction of Wahabbism.

In addition, after the attack on Twin Tower, it was common in Muslim countries (also in Sri Lanka) that Imams at Mosques were using sermons to promote Jihad. Such sermon will deny the hope of winning the hearts of law abiding citizens. They brain wash the young into supporting violent extremism. Apparently Muslims are not happy in their own countries, but are happy in the Western democratic countries. But Islamic terrorists want destruction in the Western countries.

There is a saying ‘if there is a beginning, there should also be an end’. Accordingly, if an individual starts committing acts of unrighteousness, he will also have to find out an end to justify his actions whether it is destructive or constructive and face their consequences. Similarly, even Imams using sermons to promote Jihad or promote actions of Islamic terrorists, should first realize the fruits of their actions in brain washing innocent Muslims into supporting violent extremism. It is the Muslims who will have to re-visit their extremism in the best interests of the country. Similarly Buddhist extremists using emotional slogans will also have to think of their actions when taking the law into their hands. Both factions will have to renounce their egoism which will eventually destroy themselves. Such emotional slogans will never win the hearts of law abiding citizens.

The behaviour of Religious extremists promoting and/or instigating destruction of properties and places of worships of other faiths cannot be justified. Such cowardly behaviour of religious extremists are detrimental to the best interests of the country. A man’s consciousness is distracted by senses and eventually lead to egoistic thinking or selfishness. The unstable minds of the BBS and the suspected Muslim politicians characterize their egoistic thinking and desire ridden actions. It is the lofty religious values which can help to expand human consciousness resulting in the renouncement of hatred and cultivation of love and compassion that will lead to peace and harmony as stated by Dalai Lama.

After the defeat of the LTTE, sporadic incidents in the Eastern Province and the recent incidents at Aluthgama and in other parts, speak of the ugly face of religious extremism. People of other faiths have never destroyed places of worship and killed their people. They do not even call for Jihad and death to all Infidels. Briefly Islamic terrorists failed to ask ‘what they can do for humankind before they demand humankind respects them’. This has been the outcome of Wahabbism. Simultaneously, the creation of BBS for political gain has also brought tension and conflict in the country resulting in damages to property and lives. There is also suspicion whether the creation of the BBS was to promote family bandysm of the ruling politicians on the pretext of attacking the Muslims.

Religious fanatics can only create conflicts and tension among the communities which is not a healthy sign for any country practising pluralism. Such man made conflicts can only be solved through human effort, mutual understanding with a sense of brotherhood. It is noteworthy mentioning that Canada which was insignificant about 150 years back today gives due respect to other faiths and is considered as a developed Nation, observes the path of Jesus Christ, Lord Buddha and Swami Vivekananda. But it is unfortunate to observe that Sri Lanka which boasts about 2,500 years of Buddhist heritage failed to observe those paths at a time when Buddhism is considered as a religion which teaches people ‘to live and let live’. The difference between Sri Lanka and Canada depends on the attitude of the people, moulded for many years by education and culture. In Sri Lanka both the Buddhist extremists and Muslims want to take advantage over everything and everyone. As a result their attitude can only push the country backward.

After the 2nd World War, wars have been fought to remove the obstructions for the restoration of righteousness. Victory in wars are not celebrated for suppressing the legitimate rights of the minority communities. Wars are fought to avoid the conflict arising from demanding for equality of rights by the minority communities. Tension can be defused by way of peace and exposing the merits of righteousness. This is what happened when Emperor Asoka realized his fault after listening to a sermon by a Buddhist monk. But today the rise of Wahabbism and Buddhist extremists have shattered many countries including Sri Lanka and posed a threat to peace and harmony.

The message of all Prophets and sages irrespective of any Faiths or Religions are same. First and foremost thing is that an individual should acquire a deep knowledge of his or her own religion, before understanding another religion. Thereafter an individual should understand each religion in its own distinctiveness and assess its own contribution to the unity of mankind. Every religion has universal human values and basic message for human beings.

It is time to realize that we belong to each other, though we embrace different faiths. A smile is a common language of love and not hatred. As the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregation, Lord Jonathan stated ‘God has provided one world with many faiths in which we all have to co-exist’. What is required is an interfaith movement to raise consciousness about the need for tolerance and mutual understanding between different cultures and religions. The urgent necessity is to establish an Interfaith Foundation is to defeat any religion being a militant in its nature. The issue is whether adequate measures be taken to ban all organizations engaged in spreading false religion to mislead the people, with the view to lay the foundation for the formation of an Inter-Faith Foundation.

Minister Champika Ranawaka brought a very serious allegation recently. He pointed out that Sri Lanka had become a safe haven for the Islamic terrorists. Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) General Secretary, Galagodaaththe Gnanasara Thera, also raised this charge repeatedly. Forget Gnanasara Thera, the silence of the government on the allegation of a government minister is curious.

The Indian defence establishment first exposed the existence of the Muslim extremists in Sri Lanka. The chief suspect of the German bakery bomb blast in Pune confessed the attack was masterminded in Colombo. His statement is as follows:

“The ATS charge sheet in the bakery blast case states that Baig had visited Colombo in March 2008 to meet Kagzi and Zabiuddin. The three were old friends in Beed. The Colombo visit was intended to finalize their plans for further terrorist activities.

“According to the charge sheet, Zabiuddin and Kagzi trained Baig to assemble and set off the explosive devices, and also gave him money for funding the travel of Muslim youths wanting to go for terrorist training in Pakistan.

“The charge sheet state that, after returning from Colombo, Baig settled down in Udgir, in the Latur District and went by the aliases, Yusuf and Hasan. He started a cyber cafe and used around 25 email Ids to keep in touch with the absconding suspects in the bakery blast, Ahmed Siddibappa alias Yasin Bhatkal and Mohsin Chowdhary. Bhatkal and Chowdhary met Baig at Udgir in January 2010 and finalized their plan to trigger the blast at the bakery,” the charge sheet stated.

Informed

After the exposure by India, Head of US Pacific Command Admiral Robert Willard testified before the Senate Armed Service Committee and stated that Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) operated in South Asian countries including Sri Lanka.

Indian Express newspaper reported that US intelligence services had informed India that there were about 200 cadres of Lashakar-e-Toiba in Sri Lanka. This is the relevant part of Indian Express report:

According to US inputs, Lakshkar’s 200 cadres in Sri Lanka were possibly “planners facilitators currently engaged in laying a network before more operatives can be send for specific attacks in India. In fact, these inputs suggest that Lakshkar operatives were being specifically trained to be sent to Sri Lanka,” the report said. The US assessment fact, suggests that Lakshkar is looking to strengthen its presence in Nepal and Maldives too. While Nepal has been used to carry out attacks in India, Maldives provides new options if operatives have to reach Indian Peninsular, where many ‘High value targets’ are situated.

However, Defence Secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, denied these charges in a statement to the Sunday Observer on 19 September.

Defence Secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, today denied claims by the US Terror Alert that terrorist outfit Lashkar-e-Toiba is using Sri Lanka as a base to attack India. “There is no truth whatsoever. The allegations are totally misleading and incorrect,” he told the Observer Online.

Defence Secretary Rajapaksa, said Sri Lanka will never leave room for terrorism and would not allow any foreign militant group to operate on local soil. “We will never let that happen and would always support the battle against global terrorism,” he said.

However, the Indian intelligence chiefs pointed out to Defence Secretary Rajapaksa that the existence of Islamic terrorists was a threat to the security of India. New Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi also reiterated the issue of existence of Islamic terrorists in Sri Lanka when he met Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa at his swearing-in ceremony. Media reported that the President had got excited over it. Indian media recently reported that an official of the Pakistan High Commission had planned to attack two places in South India using a Sri Lankan.

Terrorists backed by the Pak ISI were planning to target Chennai Port and central railway station as well as airports in Chennai and Bangalore, in what now appears to be deliberate and well-coordinated strategy by Pakistan to encircle India through its terror consulate in Colombo, as per sensational revelations by Mohammed Zakir Husain arrested at Chennai in the last week of April 2014. Rattling details contained in the interrogation report (IR) of Husain, kept under wraps so far, but to which ET has managed exclusives access, confirm that the electronic city in Bangalore and atomic power plant in Tamil Nadu were also part of the terror strike plan.

Husain (36), is a Sri Lankan national engaged as an agent by the Pak ISI. Hussain has revealed this and much more, including the identities, names and modus operandi of the Pakistani diplomats who guided, financed and ‘handled’ him in SL for such dangerous missions.

Hussain divulged that all planning, tasking and financing was being done personally by Pakistani High Commission (in Colombo) officials.

The Colombo Pak Consulate officials used over a dozen different (Sri Lankan, Malaysian, Maldivian) telephone numbers to keep in touch with Hussain. Details are available with ET.

Reliable contacts

Hussain was tasked to ‘develop reliable contacts working in Vishakhapatnam and Cochin Naval Bases, Chennai Port, Atomic Power Plant in Tamil Nadu’ as per the IR. He was further tasked in June 2013 to clandestinely obtain photographs of US Consulate in Chennai, shipping yard of Chennai Port, Chennai Airport, Chennai Railway Station, Israel Consulate in Bangalore, Electronic City in Bangalore, the Bangalore Airport.

Security Agency sources have told ET that Husain’s mission was reminiscent of David Headley recess in India before the devastating 2008 Mumbai attacks.

These developments were followed by communal violence in Aluthgama. Now Cabinet Minister Champika Ranawaka, also reiterates the same allegation that Sri Lanka is a safe haven for Islamic terrorists. Participating in a television discussion on Sirasa TV last week, Minister Ranawaka questioned what might happen if the Islamic terrorists act to assassinate Indian Premier Narendra Modi using Sri Lanka as their base.

This is a very highly serious allegation. India cannot ignore the matter of Islamic terrorists operating from Sri Lanka to assassinate Modi. The allegation has been made by a senior Cabinet Minister. BBS Secretary, Gnanasara Thera, said the worst kind of Islamic terrorists were hiding in Sri Lanka.

India or the US can launch an operation in Sri Lanka to seize these terrorists based on the statement of the minister. A report of the New York-based think tank Open Society Foundation said, “Sri Lanka permitted use of its air space and airports for flights associated with the UN Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) extraordinary rendition operations in 2003.”

That proves the Sri Lanka Government has already opened its air space for the rendition operations of the US to apprehend the terrorists who are threatening to that State.

“What will happen to Mahinda’s patriotic appearance if the US or India launched a rendition operation in Sri Lanka near a Presidential Election, as a result of extension of this story of existence of Islamic terrorists in Sri Lanka?” A journalist raised the above question. We are not sure if the path is paved for this.